tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN February 25, 2020 11:00am-12:01pm PST
you are watching cnn, i'm brooke baldwin. thank you for being here. as the democrats gear up for the debate tonight, senator bernie sanders finds himself in the unique position leading the pack after a convincing win in the nevada caucuses. and with that front runner status comes increased scrutiny, not just over sanders' policy like medicare for all, but also his praise of the castro revolution in that 60 minutes interview that aired over the weekend, a defense he doubled down on during our cnn town hall
just last night. >> was very opposed to the authoritarian nature of cuba, but you know, it's unfair to simply say everything is bad, you know? when fidel castro came into office, you know what he did? he had a massive literacy program. is that a bad thing, even though fidel castro did it? >> there were a lot of dissidents imprisoned. >> you're right, and we condemn that. >> teaching people to read and write is a good thing. the truth is the truth, and that's what happened in the first years of the castro regime. >> senator sanders' comments are drawing fierce backlash from democrats and republicans who say that that literacy program was more about indoctrination than education, and some democrats say the remarks highlights the risk sanders poses not just for the white house. just context for you. this all comes during the key stretch in the campaign when it began with a set of cnn town halls. it ends with super tuesday, and you can see here on your screen just what's at stake in these key contests.
you have 54 delegates in south carolina, more than 1,300 in the super tuesday states, and that includes california and texas. the super tuesday haul alone adds up to a third of the delegates needed to clinch the democratic nomination. and despite those wins in new hampshire, in nevada, bernie sanders' rivals are not ready to concede the nomination just yet ramping up their attacks on the vermont senator in everything from stump speeches to ads and, of course, to tweets. crystal lizza is our cnn politics reporter and editor at large. we've seen a lot of these attacks, some of them coming from the more moderate wing of the party. run through some of them for me. >> i think a lot of people in the democratic establishment suddenly realized bernie sanders might be formidable, which honestly they should have seen coming. let's start with the pillar of the democratic party establishment, the guy who we thought was the front runner. joe biden previewing what i
think will be his main attack on bernie sanders tonight on health care. let's play that. >> he had his back and you had his back, but back in washington, there was one guy with another plan. >> i think it would be a good idea if president obama faced some primary opposition. >> bernie sanders was seriously thinking about challenging our first african-american president in a primary. >> so basically what you see there is joe biden saying i'm the barack obama guy. he's not the barack obama guy, whether it's on medicare for all versus the affordable care act or whether it's on the possibility of a primary challenge to barack obama. i also think you'll see joe biden talk about how much bernie's plans cost and how he'll pay for them. he'll be far from the only one attacking bernie sanders. mike bloomberg, every debate preview we have suggests he will go right at him. here's bloomberg himself. we think bernie has weak on gun safety his entire career. he voted on background checks. the reason -- he's not wrong, by
the way, bloomberg on that. this was an issue at parts in the 2016 campaign. why? because bernie sanders represents vermont. you think of it as a liberal enclave, but on guns and hunting it's not. so bernie sanders is representing his constituency, but that will hurt him. that will be a major line of attack, and then the final bee who will be attacking bernie sanders, pete buttigieg. here's what he had to say about bernie bros, about the cuba issue you mentioned. let's play that. >> as a democrat, i don't want to be explaining why our nominee is encouraging people to look on the bright side of the castro regime when we're going into the election of our lives. >> now, i think brooke, the central question here that we don't know the answer to and probably won't until the south carolina primary or maybe next week, a week from today in super tuesday, is will these attacks, which absolutely are going to come bernie sanders' way in a sustained manner that we haven't seen yet, do they matter. when elizabeth warren was at the center of that maelstrom in
september in a debate, it hurt her. it slowed her momentum. when joe biden was, it hurt him. when mike bloomberg was in the last debate, i don't know how much it hurt him because he's still going to spend money but my gosh he was bad. it's hard to be in the center of those things. the issue with sanders, his support to use david chalian's word, so sticky. people who are for him are for him no matter what. does that change? can voters be peeled away from sanders? if he's got 35% in every super tuesday state, brooke, nobody else has got that much. >> we'll watch for the sticky factor post-south carolina, post super tuesday. chris, thank you so much for running through those attacks. he's got a target on his back tonight. the south carolina state house and politics reporter for the state which last night announced its endorsement of pete buttigieg. welcome. >> thanks so much for having me. >> i want to get into that endorsement in just a second, first give me the 30,000 foot view of the political landscape
in south carolina. what are you seeing? what are you hearing? not just from the democratic candidates but from voters? the race here in south carolina has certainly changed since about five or six months ago. if you would have asked me last five, six months ago what i was going to write for saturday i would have told you, and that completely changes. it's a much more competitive race here on the ground. former vice president joe biden is still considered the favorite to win south carolina's premare -- primary on saturday, but that margin between him and senator bernie sanders is shrinking. and i spoke last night to trav robertson, the chairman of the south carolina democratic party. he was saying this race is still fluid. that is something we are definitely seeing here on the ground. there are voters here who still haven't made up their minds on who they're going to vote for. i was at an event last night, the first in the south dinner talking to a woman who said she really likes bernie sanders, but she also kind of likes elizabeth
warren, so it's very much still a fluid race. i think joe biden still has an edge here, but we still have a few days to go. we have a debate, obviously tonight. >> i'm guess ing the story you would have written a couple of months ago is joe biden runs away with it. now you're saying it's a much different landscape. is that what you mean? >> yeah, it's a much different race, and especially, you know, the last several months, tom steyer did not pose so much of a threat as he does now a little bit in this race. >> what's the biggest issue for, you know, for south carolinians? if you had to put your finger on something. >> kitchen table issues are still really important to south carolinians here, health care, education, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, criminal justice reform, gun reform. at the end of the day these are the sort of foundational things that voters talk to us reporters ask talk to candidates about a
lot. certainly as we've gotten closer to the primary, there is a voting block here in south carolina that is concerned about electability. they want someone who is going to beat president donald trump in november. there is a portion of the voting block that where that is the top of the priorities they're voting for the candidate they've chosen. >> that's what's driving them and issues come in second. i know as we mentioned off the top, your paper feels that former south bend mayor pete buttigieg is the best option in the current field saying that he mads case that he can unify and lead a diverse democratic party. i want to point you to this recent nbc marist poll that shows he is just at 4% among african-american voters as owe well know the key base for distract democr democrats. can you just explain why your editorial board feels like he's the best choice for this key constituency? >> look, i appreciate the question. i'm going to leave the answer to
our editorial board to answer that as to why our editorial decided to endorse pete buttigieg for president. our new side of the newsroom is very much separate from the editorial side. i try to keep as much space away from that, so i would ask our editorial board. they're the ones who made the decision. >> all right, we'll turn our viewers to read that for themselves. thank you very much for your responses on what's going on in south carolina. let me remind all of you, night two of the special cnn two-night event continues tomorrow live from charleston. bloomberg, biden, klobuchar, warren answer voter questions just days before the critical south carolina primary. the cnn democratic presidential town halls continue tomorrow night at 7:00 eastern only here on cnn. breaking news this afternoon on the coronavirus. the cdc is now warning americans to begin preparing for the possibility of an outbreak here. we have that, of course, as you're seeing the numbers. the dow keeps falling.
we'll talk to our chief medical correspondent dr. sanjay gupta about everything he knows coming in from the cdc. and president trump attacks justices on the u.s. supreme court again. now he's calling if for ruth ba ginsburg and justice sonia sotomayor to recuse themselves. the roger stone case is back in court after he asks for a new trial, and the judge starts the hearing with a message. we have all of this and more, you're watching cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. we'll be right back. hey there! i'm lonnie from lonnie's lumber. if you need lumber wood, lonnie's is better than good. we got oak, cherry, walnut, and more. and we also have the best selection of plywood (clattering) in the state... hey! (high-pitched laughter) man: dang woodchucks! (wood clattering) stop chuckin' that wood! with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.
b11 is that? steve harvey? give me b11 isn't bingo just an ok use of your hosting abilities? it's like getting a samsung galaxy s20 5g, and not getting it with at&t. bingo! no, i only called out two letters. now, you might have go, you could have bi, but you can't have bingo. get the most from your revolutionary samsung galaxy s20 5g. switch now and get one free from at&t. building 5g on america's best network.
many people in more than 30 didn' countries and regions around the world have been infected. let's talk about the u.s., cnn's chief medical correspondent dr. sanjay gupta just heard from cdc officials about the spread of the virus in the u.s. we know there are now 57 cases of the virus here stateside. how concerned should woe be be? >> i think the concern level is still low. take a look at the numbers where these 57 patients are coming from. there's a significant number related to travel. there's only been two cases where it's human to human transmission. as you point out, the majority of patients here in the united states were repatriate, many from that cruise ship that we talked so much about. so when you look at 80,000 case, brooke, afternoon the world, 57 here in the united states, the concern level is still low, but we just did hear from the cdc, and i think that they're starting to get into this mode talking about the fact that if
we start to see this transmission within communities here, that's something we need to be prepared for. let me tell you exactly what they said. they said the data over the last week -- and they're referring to countries around the world and the spread in other countries has raised our level of concern and raised our expectations that we're going to have community spread here. i want to explain exactly what that means, brooke, but i talked to the head of the cdc dr. robert redfield, specifically about the -- specifically about the worst-case scenario here in the united states. here's how he put it. >> we've had a very aggressive approach to try to do early case identification, and then isolation and contact racing. that's enabled us to contain this at this point, but i think this virus is probably with us beyond the season or beyond this year, and i think eventually the virus will find a foothold, and we will get community based transmission, and you can start to think of it in the sense like seasonal flu. the only difference is we don't
understand this virus. at least seasonal flu we pretty much understands how it acts. >> so, brooke, to your question, 57 is the number right now, but dr. redfield, others are saying it's looking more and more likely this is going to gain a foothold here in the united states. it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be something that is wildly lethal. we still seem to think that most people who get this infection have no symptoms or minimal symptoms, but the idea that it's going to start spreading more widely, that seems to be the common consensus, brooke. >> why is it that the world health organization will be the ones to declare this a pandemic? why have they not taken this step yet? >> some of this may be semantics, brooke. there are some criteria to declare something a pandemic, and what it really means is that in several places around the world not only do you have the virus spreading but it's spreading generationally, so one person spreads it to three people, they spread it subsequently to three people each, and that sort of
transmission happens four or five times, four or five generations of spread. that's what they mean by sustained transmission. but you know, we're not there yet, according to the w.h.o., but it is possible that we're going to get there. we saw that with h1n1 in 2009. sars was never declared a pandemic. there are some criteria in place, the definition of this may change over the next couple of days and weeks. >> thank you. and thank you for the latest from cdc. got another doctor waiting in the wings here, meantime, president trump is down playing fears. he says it's very much under control. with me now is former white house health policy adviser for the obama administration. he's with me. he just returned from a w.h.o. meeting of scientific experts on the coronavirus. so you, sir, are the perfect person to be talking to. dr. emmanuel, welcome. >> nice to be here. so you just heard from sanjay that essentially, the cdc is
sounding the alarm when it comes to the coronavirus here in the states. i've read that you have suggested that people in the u.s. may be overreacting to this outbreak? how so? >> i think -- i would agree with sanjay on two very important points. first, the current risk in the united states is extremely low. we have 57 cases. the vast majority of which come from that cruise ship in japan. we've had, you know, most of them have been travel related, only a couple have been person to person spread, so i think in our daily lives, we need to be careful about not being hysterical about coronavirus for ourselves, and not stigmatizing people who come from china, that i think, is very important. will it likely spread? will we have more cases? thousands of cases in the united states? probably. that shows you that the quarantine and the travel ban
we've imposed might delay the coronavirus coming here, but it's not going to prevent the coronavirus from coming to the united states, and i think that's very important. we are obviously rapidly progressing on a vaccine and testing therapeutics, both of which are really important to see if we can block this virus from spreading through a vaccine. >> you mentioned the vaccine. let me jump to what the president said about a possible vaccine. here he was. >> the coronavirus, which is, you know, very well under control in our country. we have very few people with it. the people are getting better. they're all getting better, and i think that whole situation will start working out. a lot of talent, a lot of brain power is being put behind it. two and a half billion dollars we're putting in. there's a very good chance you're not going to die. now they have it -- they have studied it. in fact, we're very close to a vaccine. >> so two questions dr. emmanuel coming out of that, number one just the point -- i hear you
laugh, and i want to know why. is he true on the -- is he correct on the point about the u.s. being close to a vaccine? and two, what do you make of how he characterized the virus? >> well, first of all, i would say it's going to get worse before it's going to get better, and we need to be we aware of that. we're going to have more cases before it's going to taper off and decline, and the idea that we're not going to have more than 50 or a few more cases, that's just not likely. it is a low risk situation now given what we know. the death rate is 2.5%, mainly among old people and people with other complicating diseases like diabetes or heart failure or e emphysema, and that seems to be where the real problems are, but we're going to have a lot more cases in the united states, and we should be prepared. we are close to having a vaccine, three months or four months away, but then it has to go through a series of trials to assess whether it's safe,
whether it actually does produce antibodies and whether it protects people from coronavirus. that's unlikely to be completed before the end of -- well, before the next season. >> so what was funny about the president? >> well, because he was talking about we have it all under control. i might remind your audience, the president has suggested cuts in the cdc. the administration fired admiral reamer who was handling biosafety in the white house. they weren't prepared for this at all. we do have a lot of brains behind that, but that's not because the trump administration was well-prepared. it's because the -- you know, nih and the cdc, the career people there are very well-prepared, extremely well-trained and really know how to do this, but not because the administration itself, including its political appointees, were prepared for this at all or even are now prepared for this. so i think it's a little humorous for him to
authoritatively say we have this under control. that's only because of the government bureaucrats who we had to dismiss, they have it under control. they have been working hard. they've been working with the scientific community to develop a vaccine, and i think that's important to recognize. we have to make these investments. >> i appreciate you making that point, dr. zeke emmanuel, thank you, sir. >> great, thank you for having me. >> you got it. the president of the united states is once again attacking the u.s. supreme court calling for two liberal justices to recuse themselves in cases that are, his words, trump-related. and disgraced movie mow bgu harvey weinstein is now a convicted rapist. we will talk to a woman who helped expose his predatory behavior. ♪ limu emu & doug
president trump is calling for two supreme court justices to recuse themselves from any cases involving him. these two justices he's targeting, justice ruth bader ginsburg and justice sonia sotomayor, and among his grievances, this scathing dissent from justice sotomayor abt the controversial public charge rule that makes it difficult for immigrants to obtain legal status if they use public funds like food stumps. and rbf goes back to the 2016 campaign trail when she called him a quote, unquote, faker.
>> i always thought justice ginsburg should do it because she went wild during the campaign when i was running. i don't know who she was for, perhaps she was for hillary clinton. and then justice sotomayor said what she said yesterday. you know very well what she said yesterday. it was a big story, and i just don't know how they cannot recuse themselves for anything having to do with trump or trump related. >> let's go straight to our cnn supreme court reporter ariane de vogue. she's with me. what did justice sotomayor write that the president is claiming is inappropriate? >> you know, brooke, we have had a lot of heated dissents from the supreme court, not just this one. it's odd that he picks up on this one. it was heated on saturday, actually it was friday night. sotomayor issued this scathing dissent, and she said basically the government is coming to the court too often asking for emergency relief, and she also called out her own colleagues, and she said, look, they're granting these petitions way too often. it was very heated, but she
never targeted trump himself. she said at one point, it's hard to say what is more troubling, that the government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course or that trump would grant it. what she said does have a lot of truth. for instance, in the last several years, the trump administration has come to the supreme court a lot more than other administrations. but it wasn't directly targeting trump, and it's worth saying, brooke, that no other liberals on this court joined her in that dissent. >> what about what's coming up on the docket for the supreme court? what other, to use the president's phrase, trump-related cases does the supreme court have coming up? >> he's got a lot at stake at the supreme court coming up. first of all, there's that big case that we'll hear arguments on later this spring, and that's where he's trying to shield the release of his financial documents, and his personal lawyers are bringing that. there's also the case concerning daca, the obama era program that shields immigrants, some
dreamers from deportation. those are two big cases. also, the court's considering whether to take up cases like the affordable care act. that could be on the docket, either this term or next. there is a lot in play. brooke, one other thing to note is it was just last week when the attorney general was complaining that trump should stop calling out judges. remember then? so here he is. he's calling out now two justices on the supreme court, and it's the attorney general's solicitor general who's going to have to actually argue before them. it is a little extraordinary he's come out this strong. >> it is. thank you for all of that perspective. we want to continue the conversation, jeffrey eveningel the director at the center for presidential history at southern methodist history, jeffrey, nice to have you back. >> hi, good to see you again. >> it is worth reminding people that chief justice john roberts warned the president about his past politicization of the justices. roberts said, quote, we do not
have obama judges or trump judges, bush judges or clinton judges. what we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. so i wanted to read that because then in today's comments, do you think the president has a full understanding of what a dissent is? >> probably not, but i think he's actually trying to set up, i think, an argument later for -- if he wanted to perhaps take the somewhat unprecedented step of not abiding by the court. i mean, we have to remember that the presidents and the courts are historically always at odds. there's numerous examples, teddy roosevelt, franklin roosevelt, john kennedy, harry truman, i can go on ask on about presidents who have criticized the court. trump's a little different in that he criticized individual members of the court, but overall this is just part of the normal competition of powers and separation of powers within
washington. i think what's somewhat different is president trump seems to be suggesting that the court justices are not capable of rendering an unbiased decision, and therefore, perhaps in the future -- again, perhaps -- me may decide if they're not going to be unbiased, i don't need to follow what they say. >> to that point in his dissent justice sotomayor is warning gents conservatives putting their thumb on the scale. is there a fear that the president is putting his thumb on the scale when he calls for these justices to recuse themselves? >> you know, i think very much so, and i think that's actually exactly what he's suppose ed to do. i'm not bothered by the fact that the president's trying to do this. the president's trying to influence the court, that's what presidents should do. the real question is is the president going to listen when the court rules? to be honest, nothing that president trump has said is going to have any impact whatsoever inside the supreme court. there's no way that justice roberts is going to allow the president so even suggest an
appearance of making the court change its opinion. there's no way that these justices are going to recuse themselves. this is really a sense of political talk, which will have no effect inside the court. the real question is what it will do outside the court within the broader washington bubble. >> just can you explain that quickly for me? like what would -- what would worst-case scenario repercussion post scotus ruling look like if he does that? >> that's an excellent question which no one has an answer for. the truth of the matter is the supreme court has no enforcement mechanism. the only enforcement it has is the sense that people within the government, congress and the executive, should follow its rulings. that's something that's been established since john marshall back in the early years of the court. so it is possible for a president simply to have a supreme court ruling and decide not to do anything about it. now, richard nixon, not to abide by it. richard nixon actually during the watergate case when he lost
9-0 on whether he could keep his tape secret thought for several hours maybe he would just defy the court and say no, i'm not giving it up no matter what. come get them. the truth of the matter is he ultimately decided that this was too dangerous a precedent to set, so as long as a president abides by the court, there's nothing to worry about. but if a president chooses not to, well then we're in a whole new kettle of worms. >> we've been in that place and so many other places and so many other regards. we'll have that conversation if and when we need to. jeffrey engel for now, thank you very much. a congressional candidate is suspending his campaign after he overdoses on heroin. as the president continues to attack against the roger stone jury, the judge in this case is currently issuing a stinging rebuke of those attacks. stand by for that. ♪
[cheering] when you need the fuel to be your nephew's number one fan. holiday inn express. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com
jackson so grant him a new trial. stone claims a juror misled the court about whether that juror was biased against him, and judge jackson started off today's hearing by saying that the jurors are deserving of the public's respect and warning that making a juror's identity public would put them at substantial risk of harm. judge jackson sentenced stone last week to three years and four months in prison for witness tampering and lying to congress. with me now cnn political correspondent sierra ara murray elie honig, our cnn legal analyst. sara, first to you. what's the judge saying right now? >> reporter: well, look, they have reconvened this hearing, and it's interesting because it's partly opened, partly closed. we can't see anything going on in the courtroom. she's closed down the courtroom. we don't have any visuals of what's happening. when you're in the courtroom, you can go in the media room, you can still hear the audio so essentially they are going through this hearing about whether roger stone deserves a
new trial. they've alleged stone has juror misconduct. we don't know exactly what that means. a lot of these filings have happened under seal. before she did this sort of half open, half closed we were in a normal court environment where we could see what was going on, and the judge was talking about how highly polarized, highly politicized this environment is right now. she pointed to the president's tweet in which he talked about the foreperson in roger stone's jury. she pointed to a segment tucker carlson did on fox news where he was denigrating the -- it's also evidence that the jury in this case could be intimidated and could be harassed, and that is why she has decided to do things the way she is doing them this afternoon. if they decide to call any of these jurors who were in roger stone's case as witnesses, she said she doesn't want them identified by name. she doesn't want them identified by number. she doesn't want their public images out there at all. she said they would be put at a substantial risk of harm if that
were the case. and you know, brooke, socme of these jurors have done interviews after the case about their view of the prosecutors, their view of the trial. she said they were well within their right to do these inters but the judge noted that after the backlash they've received online that is why she's decided to move forward without allowing their images or names to be used in this hearing. >> let me turn to elie and ask about what you've just reported. what do you make of the judge's comments here? >> it's really important the judge said what she said. the point she's making is these are jurors. they're not here to be used as political pinatas. they're not here by choice. they're doing the most basic civic duty and don't deserve to be on the other end of president sht tweets and info wars pieces. she's doing a good job. i appreciate this as someone who's practiced in federal courts. if we have to litigate it, we'll litigate it, but don't turn them into political puppets. >> because team stone wanted her recused, right? they're saying because she said the jurors served with integrity, they feel like she's
not impartial. >> now they do. at the time they were fine with her. they questioned her at the side bar in front of the judge. she said she ran for congress. she said she was a democrat, she said she knew about stone. she knew about trump, and now they're saying she hid things and she should have been thrown off, even though they don't throw her off then. >> team roger stone wants a whole new trial. what's the likelihood of that? >> low but not impossible. >> okay. >> the one thing we don't know is -- so each juror has to come up and get questioned by the judge and the lawyers. in some high profile cases they submit written questionnaires and that we've not seen yet. if the juror lied in an important way in the written questionnaire and why would she if she told the truth in front of the judge, if she did, then there could be a problem. >> okay, elie, thank you very much. elie and sara on that. let's talk about harvey weinstein as he heads to prison, we'll talk to a woman whose story helped open up the rape investigation from the get go. why she is now violating her
wean air force veteran made of doing what's right,. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa
if you're 55 and up, t-mobile has a plan designed just for you. and, for a limited time only, we're making it an even better deal. now you can get two lines for only $55. that includes unlimited talk, text and data. with no annual service contracts. it also includes talk, text and data when traveling in mexico and canada. so if you're 55 and up, you can now get two lines for only $55. because at t-mobile, we have a plan designed just for you.
running for president - and on a roll. workable plans to deliver on better health care. affordable college. job creation. common sense plans to beat trump, fix the chaos in washington, and get things done. mike: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. despite decades of accusations, nearly two years since his arrest and his conviction on sex crimes, harvey weinstein has yet to spend a night in an actual jail cell. the 67-year-old disgraced movie mogul was admitted to a manhattan hospital en route to jail. his attorney says it was due to heart palpitations and high blood essure. a jury convicted weinstein just yesterday morning of first degree criminal sex act and third degree rape, but he was acquitted of the most serious charges. now six women testified against him, but more than 80 women had
accused him of some kind of sexual misconduct from harassment to rape to inappropriate touching, and that includes my next guest, model ombra gutierrez was 22 years old when she said weinste groped her. a recording of weinstein admitting to the offense helped expose all that became the weinstein saga when the new yorker went public with the audio in 2017. >> please i'm not going to do anything. i swear on my children, please, come in on everything. i'm a famous guy. >> i'm feeling very uncomfortable now. >> please come in now, if you want to leave -- why yesterday you touch my breast? >> come on i'm used to that. >> you're used to that? >> yes, come in. >> no, but i'm not used to that. >> gutierrez obtained the audio when she wore a wire for the new york police department, but the new york district attorney chose not to press charges against
weinstein citing not enough evidence and ombra is with me today. thank you so much. >> hi brooke. >> what is it like listening to that audio again? >> it's -- yeah, getting back to that moment every time. >> yeah. >> what was your reaction to the verdict yesterday? >> i was home with my best friend, and i literally jumped of joy, and i start crying of happiness. >> you did? >> yeah. >> and the fact that he has yet to spend a night in jail, that he was having some sort of chest pains is now in the hospital, do you have any thoughts on that? >> well, i could say that i've been through a lot also with my health, and my mental situation through the years, so i feel that things go back to where they're supposed to go and so i think, yeah, this is what is happening to him. >> you did sign an nda so the
fact that you are talking, that you're sitting here talking to me is in direct violation to that. why are you risking that? >> i already violated the nda when i kept those recordings. yeah, i was supposed to remove every type of proof from all my devices when i signed that, but i knew that deep in my heart i needed to do something and that the system was failing me so i had to do it that way. i knew that those recordings were very, very important to help other women and so i decided to keep them. >> do you feel that it did? >> yeah. it did. i really, really feel that, yeah, without that probably it would have been more difficult situation to. >> for other women to speak up. >> you are here because you and other harvey weinstein survivors
are getting together this coalition because you want to work to pass the adult survivors act in new york state. >> yes. >> what is that? what would that achieve? >> so the adult survivor's act is a bill that was introduced last year from senator brad homan and senator rosenthal, so it would give a window of one year to look back to a situation of assault and abuse to adult survivors so that they could outside the statute of limitation, again, reopen the case. >> statute of limitation o'that would be outside so they could reopen their case. weinstein wouldn't comment on your specific allegations of touching you inappropriately. a spokesperson has said in the past, with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, mr. weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual. my question, ambra to you, is,
you know, if a survivor of sexual assault, rape, what have you were to come forward to you today, perhaps who was -- somebody who's afraid to report it, what would you say to him or her now? >> now we have this example to follow to understand that we're more safe to come forward, but i absolutely understand that is very traumatizing and very hard to right away talk about those type of situation. i could say that i'm still lucky that i didn't have to go through what the other women been through. >> how do you mean? how are you lucky? that's quite a word to use. >> rape is a much bigger word than being assaulted. i know it's very, very hard to go through both situations, but i feel that recovering from a trauma like rape, it's very
hard. >> if you could say anything to harvey weinstein, what would you say? >> i don't think he deserves any kind of word from me. >> ambra battilana gutierrez, strong woman. thank you for coming forward. as mod raerate democrats ge worried about the rise of bernie sanders. plus, the dow falling and falling as fears grow over the coronavirus outbreak and an interview by a trump adviser. that's next. hey there! i'm lonnie from lonnie's lumber. if you need lumber wood, lonnie's is better than good. we got oak, cherry, walnut, and more. and we also have the best selection of plywood (clattering) in the state... hey! (high-pitched laughter) man: dang woodchucks! (wood clattering) stop chuckin' that wood!
plant based material that's not thisonly extremely durable, but also quite flexible. making it ideal for warby parker glasses. which by the way, start at $95, including prescription lenses. try 5 pairs for free at warbyparker.com oh yeah, about those prescription lenses. warby parker glasses come standard with custom cut polycarbonate lenses that have been treated with scratch resistant and anti-reflective coatings, nice. try 5 pairs for free at warbyparker.com
welcome back, you're watching cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. thank you for being here. i've got some breaking news right now, stocks falling again as fears grow over the coronavirus. you see the big board here, the dow diving more than 800 points this afternoon following steep losses yesterday as well. all of this comes as public health officials warn it is only a matter of time before the coronavirus outbreak spreads right here in the united states. let's go straight to alison kosik our cnn business correspondent live there at the new york stock exchange. we know that, you know, the coronavirus outbreak started weeks ago. lay it out to us as to why investors are so spooked? >> you think about yesterday, they became even more spooked as
the virus extended beyond china's borders. the number of cases rose, and those cases weren't in china. fast forward to today, we saw the market start off in the green this morning. there was some hope for some good news. that good news didn't come. instead we got that news you just mentioned from the centers for disease control saying it's not a question of if but when the disease comes hear to the u.s. and the possibility that it could spread. the question is, how many people will have severe illness? so this, of course, spooking the market. we're seeing the market tank again for a second day in a row. that's 1,700 points in two days. needless to say,s dow has wiped out all of its gains for the year. brooke. >> thank you. now to the democratic debate and the last time the candidates hit the stage, mike bloomberg was on the receiving end of a lot of incoming fire. if the new york city -- or the former new york city mayor gets his way tonight, it will be senator bernie sanders who really bears the brunt of those jabs. in a tweet today, blobe
IN COLLECTIONSCNN (San Francisco) Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on